Thursday, February 07, 2008

Single Men in Never-Neverland?

Why do today’s men run from commitment - indefinitely delaying settling down in a marriage they take seriously, and having kids? Dr. Helen Smith asks whether they are indeed pampered eternal adolescents more interested in exploding toilets and video games than real life, or if they are simply making a logical choice when “the reward for being an adult in our society is so low, especially for men.”

146 Comments:

Helen, in my view it's rational economic behavior. The opportunity costs for marriage are huge and the personal and financial risk is gigantic.

To see this, put marriage aside for a moment and just consider dating prior to marriage. Men take all of the social and financial risk of dating. Women comfortably and publicly announce that they will not date men who don't pay for dates or who make less money than they do.

When you ask women, "OK. You get your entertainment paid for you. What does the man get from you?" Women will say, "Great sex." Women really do see dating as a straightforward exchange: he pays for her entertainment, and she gives sex or at least the prospect of sex.

At the very beginning of dating, where relationships start, women expect to be purchased. Women don't even hide this intention. They have come to think of men as exploitable dupes, the same way prostitutes think of their customers.

For very obvious and rational reasons, men do not commit to long-term relationships with prostitutes. American women shouldn't be surprised that men don't want them anymore.

"At the very beginning of dating, where relationships start, women expect to be purchased."

--------

Right, and the problem is that it also sets the whole tone for the relationship later on.

As a side note, I wonder why playing video games is now always a part of woman shaming these "Peter Pan" guys. Is it more effective at making men who won't marry look like boys?

I will not get married (I'm in my 40s), but I'm otherwise very responsible in my life. And I don't even play video games. Sometimes I wonder - given the risks of marriage - whether the real "boys" aren't the ones who get married today, who need a mommy figure, and who are apparently so desperate for a woman that they give control of all their future earnings and assets to some woman.

Some women and others do seem hostile towards video games--those playing them are generally older--20's and thirties, not teens. For many women, the games seem to represent a threat, the men are paying attention to games and not them.

"... --those playing them are generally older--20's and thirties, not teens."

----------

That seems kind of old to me to be playing video games, but I think it's not really my business.

I'm not sure how it ties into responsibility, though. Being responsible in life means paying for yourself, paying your own way in life and not relying on the state or parents (for example), and being in a position to responsibly care for yourself over the long term. If these men are responsible in life, then what they have is a HOBBY. I have different interests when I'm not working, but I'm not going to begrudge anyone their hobby. That's their way of unwinding.

Getting married in 1965 wasn't necessarily right or wrong but it was culturally acceptable or maybe culturally mandated. That mandate doesn't exist in 2008, the massive pressure is off. Young men, middle-aged men, and many others like me that don't fit those categories have weighed the pros and cons and have decided marriage and family isn't for us. Is that a crime? I don't think so but Darleen definitely seems to think it is unflattering. Oh well, sue me.

What we possibly need here is a legislative solution: "The Male Commitment and Anti-Weasel Act" co-sponsored by Joseph Biden and Ted Kennedy.

Under the act, chunky, opinionated women who are unable and unwilling to earn their own way through life will be sent to live with men who are evading their responsibility to support a woman. There will be heavy penalties for the men if they make any negative comments to their assignees; penalties will be doubled if comments are made while she's watching Oprah.

Darleen's idea is that men should behave as if women haven't changed in the last fifty years. On this view, men are supposed to behave like 18th century gentlemen even while women behave like 21st century feminists.

It's foolish for men to ignore facts. It's foolish for women to expect men to. Over the long term, men are not going to ignore how women behave. This is a fact. Darleen's view notwithstanding.

I see nothing wrong with not marrying. If marriage is not for you, don't get involved. However, there are men on the fence about the issue who decide that the cons are just not worth it. This seems reasonable, but if everyone decides to behave this way, it is bad for society. Therefore, society needs to change to make marriage more attractive. Equal divorce laws, joint custody, no alimony etc.except in the most unusual of circumstances would be a start.

I wonder how these women who are trying to shame and blame men into marriage can even justify what they are saying. I don't think they can, or that they even think about it, it's all about what they want. It seems to me to be a natural right to NOT have to give up control of your life to someone else (and that's not just a polemic statement, but pretty much reality given the courts today).

I picture a woman on the front porch of a Georgia plantation in 1850, sipping lemonade, complaining that the slaves just aren't motivated any more. That same type of woman is now thinking the same way today, but her new target is men, who aren't bowing down to her any more like they used to.

Helen wrote, This seems reasonable, but if everyone decides to behave this way, it is bad for society. Therefore, society needs to change to make marriage more attractive. Equal divorce laws, joint custody, no alimony etc.except in the most unusual of circumstances would be a start.

This is so very reasonable. If only law-makers would listen. They are still mired in a bog of falsehoods about women and marriage. It reminds me of Darleen's policy of "deny the facts."

Dr. Helen, don't legislators know there is a serious problem? If so, why don't they act to restore marriage?

Cham: But at least that would remove most of the financial disincentive to getting married.

Jeff: The problem is that all of our legislators are a bit long in the tooth, and thus have been distant from the dating scene for a while now. Since they have no firsthand knowledge, they rely on the media, which is still rhetorically bludgeoning us men for any and all problems within marriage.

People who are married are able to provide better environments for kids, more commitment to sticking around and provice both a mother and a father for a child. If people would do these things without a state license, that might work also, a private contract perhaps.

"Dr. Helen, don't legislators know there is a serious problem? If so, why don't they act to restore marriage?"

Because they are rewarded for giving benefits to women in society and punished if they are viewed as "helping white males." It is politically correct to take rights away from men at this point in history. In the long run, it will make society worse, but in the short run, they will be re-elected and held up as "being supportive of women's issues." Remember what happened to Larry Summers?

I understand the beef against video games. Men used to go out with their friends to the bar, bowling, hunting, etc. Now they can bring that culture into the living room when they play online with friends. I think women react the same way a man reacts to walking into a room when his wife and her friends are talking about their periods.

As for "growing up", a lot of it was out of necessity and because society asked for it. The womens' movement raised women up, and they took on some of mens' responsibility. What is the pressure on a man when he is the sole breadwinner for his family? That pressure is gone.

And call it sexist, patriarchal, stone age, what have you, but men like to be heroes. Men are no longer needed by their family, but video games and sports do allow for small heroic victories.

I'll take my shot at the video games as well. I think the video game choice is a better one than driving to a bar and imbibing, so go for it.

However, this activity doesn't do much for encouraging friendship and personal communication. Gaming is a sport that is done most times as alone. If one takes enjoys video games but also maintains personal contact with a number of people then there isn't a problem. But when one sheds themselves of all personal contact and devotes themselves to video games all hours that they aren't eating, sleeping or working, it becomes more of a sport of avoidance.

If one says to themselves, "I enjoy video games but plan to get married at a later date when I emerge from the basement in 10 years" then I can guarantee that won't be so easy.

I do wish video games would stop being associated with juvenile behavior. Your take is better than most, but the fact is that video games are just another form of entertainment, not some special male juvenile thing. You'd never ask of movie viewers or John Scalzi readers, for example,

The interesting question is, are these men paying for themselves or are they living off mom, dad or someone else?

I'm 25, I'm a gamer, and I live alone. Many of my friends play video games. Many of them are women. Many of them are married or engaged.

My experience hasn't been that I'm particularly afraid of marriage, but that given the legal framework and today's society, I'm going to be a lot more careful about picking a spouse than my mom was. IMHO, there are 3 main things a man gets out of marriage:

1. Children2. A permanent relationship with (ideally) a best friend3. A reliable sex partner.

Well, if the woman doesn't want children, isn't committed to marriage as a permanent relationship, doesn't share the guy's interests, and sees marriage as the point where she has to stop trying, then why should men get married? Might as well wait for a woman who's more mature, and wants a husband rather than a daddy or an ornament.

I'd say your reply to Eric was just about perfect. I would add that most American women seem to have gotten it into their heads that the way to manipulate (i.e., "attract") balky and distant men is to severely criticize us, which just makes us even more balky and distant. Maybe it's time for women to try new strategies.

Like many other women, Hymowitz's passes judgement and belittles men thus contributing to the very problem which she complains about. I know guys in their 20s, 30s and 40s who play video games. Some are married, some not, some use it as a way to spend time with their kids.

An observation of some women I know is this: My ex, soon to be 47, and her group of friends love to party. At least once a month they'll celebrate a birthday, or have a party or go out for some other reason, I can't swear about the others but my ex will drink so much (and plans to do so) that she'll spend the night at someone elses's house or have to have someone else drive her home. She prefers spending the night so there is no chance the kids witness her condition but they know what's going on anyway. Great role model.

Her friends are largely non-working wives of doctors, business men and other professionals who expect to have their partying funded by their hard working husbands who rarely particicpate in the activities.

Another woman I know (late thirties) divorced her husband about a year ago. Of course, she got the house, primary custody of their daughter (although he was the one who participated in the vast majority of activities with the daughter), etc. The woman is already pregnant out of wedlock by her boyfriend. They do plan to get married. Since she is a nurse I have trouble believing the pregnancy was an accident and more likely a trap.

Hymowitz complains about immature men. Why isn't she complaining these selfish, egocentric, middle age princesses? Maybe she falls into this group. I warn my sons to watch out for signs that any girl they become interested in may grow up to be one of these.

Perhaps the folowing statement should be considered: In today's anti-male -- in truth, anti-man -- environment, The question is not about being an unmarried man-child, but about needing to be unmarried as the best way to become a man.

This crap that only by being married can a boy become a man is contemptible.

In the U.S., why should a rational man even consider getting married in this day and age? I should know- I married an M.D., which means that I enjoy all of the “neglect” but none of perks of being “Doctor’s Wife” after paying for her medical school, supporting her career, essentially raising her children & earning a commensurate salary. That being said, thanks to chivalrous “secular progressive” male politicians & judges, women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Through the Roe v. Wade decision, they have the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood. Moreover, the American woman can, with impunity, engage in maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control: 30% of women in a recent survey indicated that they would lie about their fertility based on the income of their partner) and paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father: $ to 10% of all mothers). Women trial lawyers having invented “No Fault” divorce, American women bring 70% of divorce actions & are awarded custody of their children 90% of the time, have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled” to child custody, child support, and alimony. When women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence (40-50% of all accusations turn out to be false), thereby committing felonies, they are never prosecuted. Despite the inherent sexism of VAWA, women are just as likely as men to engage in domestic abuse. They comprise 54% of the electorate and graduate college 33% more frequently than men. American women control almost 60% of national wealth and spend 80% of all family income despite the fact that only 60% of all women work outside the home. The list of female rights and privileges goes on and on and on. Why do women in the U.S. continue to insist that the “playing field” is leveled against them, e.g., Marriage, when that clearly isn’t the case? It’s a “woman’s world” after all is said and done.

A few quick comments: 1) Marriage often makes people more mature. Learning to live with someone else successfully and learning to raise children successfully are very difficult and challenging tasks. Anyone who acheives success in these areas will necessarily develop traits that we describe as "maturity".

As a husband and a father I have grown in ways that I don't think would have occurred if I remained single. I am not claiming thereby that I am better than any given single person. Rather I am saying I am better person than I would have been if I had remained single and childless.

2) Men are less likely to marry because there is less societal pressure to marry. In my father's generation anyone who was single after he or she turned thirty was definately the odd man (or woman) out. In his generation, if a person never married, he or she was perceived to have some major character or personality flaw. I don't think this is so true anymore. 3) I don't have anything against video games. I don't play them myself because I have other priorities. I don't play golf for the same reason. Society as a whole benefits from my other priorities, which include investing time in my children and the community they are growing up in.

Which gender is truly immature in their behavior & expectations in contemporary U.S. Society? Thanks to the lobbying efforts of feminists focused on chivalrous “secular progressive” male politicians & judges, today’s women children live increasingly “responsibility optional, consequence free” lives. Women have the majority of civil, education, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Result? Women are abusing “No-Fault Divorce”: women apply for 70% of all divorces while utilizing children as financial assets in order to leverage the largest amount of de facto Alimony: i.e., child support. Why find a new boyfriend if you don’t have an ex-husband to subsidize your new love life. Given their child custody monopoly, mothers commit 60% of all child abuse. Moreover, in recent poll 30% of women were willing to commit maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) depending on the prospective father’s income. Fifty percent (50%) of all married women commit adultery which results in at least 4-10% of women committing the most despicable act of domestic abuse: paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father) w/ impunity by legally forcing their husbands to pay for some else’s children. Why not have an affair if you have an ambulatory wallet to pay for consequences of said affair. Women routinely employ abortion as de facto birth control that results in 25 % (1.4M) of all children conceived yearly being aborted for pure convenience!!! Also, since Women unilaterally decide to have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, those same chivalrous male politicians enacted social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit promiscuous irresponsible women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. Why is it always some woman implying that we live a “conservative” country when it’s clear that we are living in an increasingly gynocentric, socialist dystopia?

I think video games are boring personally, but they do build eye and hand cooridination. I have friends who play them & I can see how it is an escape for them- music is my escape... escape, like them, from the tedious, petty, entitlement obsessed, appearence obsessed, manipulative (ever notice that word has the word 'man' in it?) shallow-as-a-bird feeder combined with a massive false sense of superiority world of women that makes me and them nauseous. Read thishttp://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/ It explains everything.

It seems sort of odd that the response to the problem of men not wanting to get married is to...blame men. I can't help but think that, if the situation were reversed, and it were women who didn't want to get married, the response would still be to blame men.

Personally, I think it's just an issue of incentives. The incentives aren't there for men, so they're not doing it. While I won't bore everyone with a long discussion about the nature of this lack of incentives, I'll just state that until this changes, men will continue to reject marriage, and this situation cannot be changed by men. Men can't and won't be browbeaten into marriage. If we are enjoying our lives and we're happy, most of us couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about it.

For the record, though, I am married, and I got married recently at the age of 33, so I spent the decade of my 20's obtaining a full appreciation of the nature of the modern American female. Let's just say, at the age of 18, I was in a hurry to get married. By the age of 30, I was pretty indifferent to the idea. I finally did get married, but I wouldn't have felt any less manly or in any way immature if I hadn't.

However, I do think that this situation is not as bad as it's made out to be. I have plenty of male friends who really, really wanted to get married, even sometimes against any sense of logic or reason. Also, I don't think some of the reasons listed above related to divorce and family courts really explains much since most of that stuff is learned after the fact. Most men don't think about that stuff prior to marriage (perhaps they should, but in my experience they don't), and they don't go into marriage thinking they are going to get divorced. It's the stuff that happens before marriage (i.e., the dating scene) that increases men's reluctance to get married.

(The etymology of "manipulative" has to do with "maniple", meaning "hand". Best not to conflate unnecessarily. Just saying.)

Once again the problem stems from people trying to have it both ways. The other day I saw an Oprah segment (hey now, put those pitchforks away - them there's some good entertainment at times!) having to do with a very outspoken matchmaker explaining to various women why they were still single. Every issue boiled down to having a well-stroked ego and no actual self-value, but the fixes were generally superficial and, again, ego-stroking. It was as if they couldn't handle doing what was necessary to become comfortable in their own skin and had to have some sort of "out" built into the advice.

But as cringe-inducing as that was, the worst was the abjectly skewed world view that produced many questions, entirely unchallenged by the answers. "How do you pretend to be weak without being subservient?" is how much of it sums up. Rather than point out the false dichotomy and suggest a more reality-based approach, the yenta (sorry, shadchen) basically said, "Just fake it." Oh, and the biggest applause in this Tough Love edition of building progressive femininity? When she insisted that a man must always pay for pretty much anything.

Come on, now. There's a reason that was the norm. And there's a reason I used past tense. You can pick one, and we'll go along with it most likely; but try to have it both ways and you'll stay single.

Of course no one has mentioned the fact yet that there are no women who are marriage material anymore in the U.S. and there hasn't been for at least 15-20 years. U.S. females, i.e., beligerent, dumbed downed, tatooed, venerally diseased road whores who have had more penises in them than a sperm bank generally do not make good wives unless you're in the Hell's Angels.

It's typical of our now feminist-dominated culture that this woman conducted her entire study without ever once coming into contact with an actual male person, and even published her study without anyone noticing this glaring error. Even in Men's Health magazine, now run by the wife and daughters of the man who founded it, they have more women than men interviewed and quoted throughout every single article, often not consulting any men at all, and yet they see no problem with this. All the advice given for men on how to be men comes from women. And increasingly this is the norm. Men's Health and all magazines claiming to be for men, looks more and more like an issue of Cosmo or Woman's Day, simply altered slightly and intended to direct males to be more feminine and submissive to females.

We have had over 40 years of feminist dominated culture here in the West. 40 years of an openly declared war on males and all things masculine. Lately I keep stumbling across articles claiming men aren't marrying as part of a "backlash against feminism", but unless by 'backlash' they mean the direct consquence of feminism and its' foundation of hatred of the male sex, then it isn't a backlash at all. It is simply the natural and logical result. In fact, if you read many of the books written by the feminists who determined the direction of the movement back in the 60s and 70s you find that this destruction of marriage is one of their original goals, one which was never renounced or rejected. The fact that they now blame men for their success is simply an attempt to keep the blame off themselves as they continue with their original plans. They declared that marriage was slavery for women and must be destroyed. They declared that family was keeping women from fulfilling their destiny as workers and wage earners and so must be destroyed, or as they later decided, redefined to mean anything but an intact, two-parent, heterosexual family. And they altered the laws to help them, turning the legal system into a club with which misandric feminists have furthered their goal of castrating and destroying any male who dares to involve himself with a female. Now they have their own branch of the Department of Justice, funded with over $14.6 billion in men's tax money. They already controlled the misnamed 'family courts' long before they took over the Justice Department. And most men know this, whether they are fully conscious of it or simply aware of the consequences after seeing their own fathers castrated and imprisoned.

As far as men being more immature now than ever before, I'd point out the study showing that both males and females have demonstrated steadily increasing levels of narcissism since the 1980s, when the study was begun. The results were reported just last year, I believe. It was discovered that it isn't just males who aren't growing up. Females aren't either. Despite the typical male-bashing and blame-the-male of our feminist-dominated media, the reality is that men and women are still very much joined together. The college girls studied weren't growing up and maturing any more than the college boys were. Both were increasingly self-centered and narcissistic with each new year of students studied. Neither was as interested in long-term committment or self-sacrifice as the previous generations. This propensity for perpetual adolesence isn't a male phenomenon at all. It's a Western phenomenon made possible by our increasing wealth, and encouraged by our culture of "all-about-me", of which feminism is only one part. With or without the existence of feminism, our entire society has taken the attitude that we all deserve to be happy, are entitled to have whatever we want, and can do as we please without consequence or concern for others and it has run with it.

Where once anyone having trouble in marriage might be supported and encouraged to work it out, now we routinely see no such encouragement. Even "Dear Abby" and almost all other such advice columnists, nearly all of whom are women, routinely advise women experiencing marital unhappiness to just dump the marriage and walk away, even going so far as to throw in legal advice on how to make sure she takes as much of his money and future earnings as possible in the divorce. False claims and assumptions of domestic abuse are often thrown in, as well. No one encourages anyone to stick out a marriage anymore. No one. This has nothing to do with men not being mature. This has to do with our entire culture having refused to enforce the marriage contract, refused to support and encourage marital stability, and refused to acknowledge, both through our actions and our laws, the importance of family.

Most studies come from colleges and universities, all of which are dominated by feminists. The press is also dominated by feminists. It is no surprise to me, in view of this, that the most publized studies all claim that the decline in marriage and family is all mens' fault. It was just a few short years ago that these same media-dominating feminists were publicizing the rise of single mother households to outnumber intact families. And they celebrated it. That alone was more revealing than anything I could say here.

Ok, not the real Dr. Frasier but I think of myself as similar to him. I'm not a metrosexual but I enjoy going to the opera and ballet, local community events, wine tasting, etc. I also have some eclectic hobbies such as shooting that women really get into when I introduce them to it.

I'm going somewhere with all of this. Despite not being a beer drinking, slobbish, video gamer (not that there's anything WRONG with that!), most women I met could care less about my interests. They looked at the raw bottom line: My education, how much money I had (and was willing to blow on a first date) and how tall I was. I'm kind of like the sweet plain looking girl whose also a great cook and housekeeper.

At the same time, I remember lots of tomgirls who were into auto repair or computers and had to beat off men with a stick. So I don't think it's just my lack of attractiveness or swag that turned the women off.

I honestly think most of these women just don't like men.

They TOLERATE men to get stuff out of them or to bang a good looking guy for status but they don't ENJOY men's companionship. They're like the way men were accused of being shallow except lacking the merit of being a provider as men are.

As reality2007 said as well, most of these women are tattoo covered or have, ick, these awful piercings in their nose or mouth. BLEAH BLEAH BLEAH!

I think they start thinking about men when they want to settle down and get him to pay the bills and by then, they don't have a lot to offer. They've got a lot of serious introspection to do but for starters, they at least are realizing that things have changed. This is progress.

20 years ago, women took it for granted that sugar daddies would be there after she'd partied with the roadies at Megadeath. Sadly, there are still some out there but they're quickly becoming the white buffalo.

Film box office sales were also up in 2006, with over 60 movies grossing $50+ million in theaters. Even with this strong performance, the overall yearly ticket take was a mere $9.49 billion--$4 billion shy of gaming's total. This would appear to show a sizable gap in the two fields.

Why is sitting in front of the TV and watching OK (not juvenile), but interacting with a game played upon the TV not ok(juvenile)? Games are interactive, often have deep stories, and actually can require you to think (strategy gaming).I could go on and on...Research it yourselves instead of falling back on: These kids today with their Elvis Presley and their Rock and Roll music! It wasn't like that in my day!

Guys, if you think you really want to get married but you're tired of the attitudes of American woman as so eloquently described above in various ways, consider finding a woman from another country.

After ending up divorced by what turned out to be a typical American woman I am now in a serious relationship with a woman from Mexico.

Consider this: Despite the fact that she's a single mom, she's never once played the victim card or complained how hard she has it. She's got a good education and a good career and she's willing to give that up to come to the US to be with me. I could fill the page with her virtues. Suffice it to say that she is not a typical Ameribitch.

Another place to find beautiful, wonderful, traditional women is the Philippines.

You've got the Internet at at your fingertips. Exercise some caution but the pool of really cool non-American women is quite large.

That seems kind of old to me to be playing video games, but I think it's not really my business.

That's like saying 40 is too old to watch television. Video games are a form of entertainment, nothing more; they aren't inherently childish.

Anyway, I'm definitely among those who think that the costs of marriage are much higher than the benefits. I give up half my earnings and most of my freedom and rights in exchange for... what, exactly? Companionship? I can get that from my friends.

Well, I play gold AND video games! And I am currently sole breadwinner for a family of 6.

The only time I play games when the wife and kids are awake or around is when they are watching a movie for the nth time and I cannot take it! Someitmes I put in the iPod and read beside them, other times I go play in the next room.

The other time I play is when I get a real lunch at work or after the family is asleep. My oldest daughter used to play with me before she got more interested in her male class mates than killing orcs. Good for her!

Same thing with golf, I ask my wife before I play and it does not interfere with my family life.

The reason is simple. I love my family much more than I love golf or video games!

It is not about maturity as much as it is priorities I think. Maybe that is the same thing in the end though.

Oh, and I would NEVER write an article about a group without talking to some members of that group! Maxim is made to get men to buy it, not to show anyone what men are really like. Shoddy work by the so called author.

That seems kind of old to me to be playing video games, but I think it's not really my business. That's like saying 40 is too old to watch television. Video games are a form of entertainment, nothing more; they aren't inherently childish.

mrs. milt, your point is right on the freakin' money. I've been wondering how long it would take anyone to notice that curious inversion of the obvious.

Consider, friends, 2 pastimes. Or hobbies, perhaps. Both are popular and well-known enough to support an industry, and generate discussion away from the actual activities. One of them is entirely passive: you can do it in the company of others, but there is nothing to actually "do." The other is inherently interactive: if you do nothing, it simply stops. Moreover, this 2nd pastime has variations that let you do it on your own or with others, and those others can be physically present or connected remotely.

Which hobby's practitioners would more naturally be scoffed at as being primitive, mindless or less socially evolved?

After reading Hymowitz's piece, I have to say, that despite having written a lengthy article, she still doesn't really "get" her subject matter. There's so much wrong with it that if I were a professor grading her work, I would simply put a huge red X through it and write "start over". There's not even much point in critiquing it line by line.

The article reads as if it's a long lament on the fact that guys like things that guys like. And, of course, because guys like those things, those things are childish. Furthermore, in order to become adults, guys must give up those things. And, goshdarnit, they're just not doing it.

That's about it. For those who haven't read it yet, I've saved you a great deal of time.

You're welcome.

(As a side note: I think it's interesting that men are often told what they need to do to be considered adults. I rarely see this for women, however. Is this true, or am I just missing it?)

I appear to getting into this issue a little late, but in my opinion, this whole issue is probably the root of most of the Western World's problems.

The American family is weaker than at any time I can remember, and I was born in 1958. What can it be blamed on? I think the monetary and emotional cost of raising children and being a responsible person are part of it. Most people, whether Democrat or Republican, love handouts. It is obvious from this current election cycle that most people will vote for whomever will give them the most and the politicians will say anything to get your vote. We are all greedy selfish louts, although some of us are a lot worse than others.

When everyone is out looking for whatever they can get from someone else, they forget a basic rule that has never changed, TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, ref: R. Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"). Just as people that want the government to provide for their every need become slaves of the state, Women that want Men to provide for their every want, will have sold their souls to these "so called" men that will provide these wants. If the women are "faking it" and the men are "buying it", this whole scenario sucks and we are screwing ourselves worse than we think we are screwing others. This demeans everyone.

I was raised to be a "Good Christian" and to try to show love to everyone I meet. I often feel frustrated by my wrong belief that Christians are not supposed to cause problems by speaking up against wrongdoing by others, as we are supposed to not judge them for their wrongdoing. This idea is how we have backed ourselves into this corner where we must be tolerant of everyone. This is another example of society killing itself by thinking that Jesus was always nice and sweet all of the time. He was not Politically Correct, He was willing to denounce wrongdoing to whoever needed to hear it, regardless of the consequences. I will sacrifice myself for my wife, my family and my Country (as defined by our Constitution), but I refuse to sacrifice myself to a selfish and greedy population of lazy socialist thugs that are not capable of understanding why their life sucks and have no desire to learn how to improve their life or soul.

I hope that I can live up to the real Christian standard, that eschews ass kissing, and at the same time overcome the "PC" Demasculinization of the Western Male that is eating away at this country and the Western World. The sooner both males and females see the shit that we are standing in, the sooner that we can step out of it, wash it off and move on. Then we can realize what our problems are and how to take care of them ourselves rather than keep hoping that the bastards and bitches, that are pouring it on us, will dig us out.

"If a candidate running for State Representative or State Sentaor ran on this issue, would you vote for them no matter what party?"

It's been done. There has been wave after wave of family law "reform" including no-fault,joint custody, parenting plans, and even statutes requiring mediation for families with minor children - which are quietly bypassed by some loophole, at least in my state.

I did some pro bono work last year and was embarrassed to learn they don't even use the word "custody" anymore. But believe me, it's all just as dysfunctional as ever.

Yeah, my wife gets upset if I play video games "too much," although I don't play that much by some standards. Hell, I still only have a Playstation 2.

My wife spends much, much more time sitting in front of the TV, and she primarily watches reruns of crappy sitcoms or movies that she's already seen at least a half-a-dozen times. If she's home, the TV's on.

Apparently, there's such a thing as "too much" video game playing, but no such thing as "too much" tv watching.

It’s 1965 and you’re a 26 year-old-white girl. You’re married with your high school boyfriend and have a kid, with another on the way. You cook, make all the household chores (even if you have a job), you are nice and sweet to your man, make sex with him even if you don’t feel like it and give him all the authority ("daddy knows best"). You know how to make ends meet without complaining, you are satisfied with a man with a modest income and you never complain. Yup! You’re an adult.

Now meet the twenty-first-century you, also 26. You've finished college and you are partying like crazy, making pictures with your female friends where you are drunk and show your asses, banging Mr. Right Now until Mr. Right arrives, being in serial relationships with bad boys, while you despise nice guys for being “boring”. In your spare time, you gossip about Britney Spears, bitch about men with your friends, watch "Sex and the City", "Oprah" or "Oxygen" and read "Cosmopolitan" (not Maxim, like these immature men). You want marriage and kids but only after 30.

So then, when you biological clock is ticking, you nag a guy to marry you and became instantly dissatisfied because marriage is not like in romantic movies. You are always complaining. You feel entitled to a big house, a big SUV, a lifestyle you can’t afford but you have seen in "Desperate housewives". You are hugely in debt while your husband slaves himself to buy half of the IKEA catalogue. You want to be a traditional woman about chivalry, your man being the primary breadwinner and having commitment from your man. But you want to be a modern woman about career, avoiding performing the traditional female roles (cooking - but a microwaved pizza is OK-, chores, being under authority of men, etc) and leaving the commitment (divorce) when “you are bored” (since 70% of divorces are initiated by women). It’s all about you.

Yes, I saw Fark had linked to my column--and the comments there weren't bad. Apparently, this topic needs more exposure--it seems to really touch a nerve but then if I was called a child-woman in the promised land, I might have a few choice words myself.

Good question. I am pro-choice but I understand why people are pro-life. I think abortion as a "back-up birth control" is not a good idea and I can see it leading to more people getting involved in sexual acts they might not get involved in if this option was off the table.

What part of culture are you talking about? Having more sex without getting married? Not sure this is such a bad thing. However, it could lead to fewer people marrying since they can get sex outside of marriage with no or little social consequence. Again, I am talking here more about the legal and psychological dynamics of why men may not make the choice to marry. But other factors such as Roe v. Wade might factor in--I would think more for women though, then for men.

These links take you to episodes of the Tom Leykis Show. As was noted by several callers, this was one of the best exchanges that I've ever heard on his show (which, because of the nature of many of the callers, is generally lacking in terms of intelligent conversation). Kay Hymowitz is a guest for 3 hours on the show and takes calls for about an hour and a half of it.

As for my take on this, I agree with others here. Kay is bemoaning the fact that women, who in many cases are the greedy, self-obsessed monsters that some here have labeled them as, are now having trouble finding men to pay for their one-sided agendas - having a fairy-tale family life which, in her mind, has the man playing the role of the human wallet and nothing more. She blames men for the problem and passes her own judgment on men and society as a whole - judgments which come from a, and only a, woman's point of view. She completely ignores the fact that, like others here have pointed out, women over the past 40 years have changed dramatically and left little to desire for men in terms of acceptable partners.

That said, I would like to see a response piece. This is a subject which could be taken in so many different directions because there are so many issues that have affected society over the past several decades: the change in the way that we educate students; the rise of single-motherhood-by-choice, divorce, and dual-career households; media influences; divorce law and family law; changing economic incentives and deterrents to getting married (which weren't given nearly enough attention, IMO); the rise of radical feminism (of the 1970-current variety) and its effects on society; the choices that women themselves are making; changing economic realities. I would also like to see a piece that did not come from the author's own point of view. She could drop the whole "child-man" label as well as her own assumptions about what is good or not good for society. A piece that addresses in a neutral manner the reasons for why men are no longer willing to play the role assigned to them would be great. Who cares about what women think about men. Write a good piece, send it to those dopey magazines that women read and maybe one or two of them might have a better understanding of how men feel and begin to accept them as they are.

Who cares about what women think about men. Write a good piece, send it to those dopey magazines that women read and maybe one or two of them might have a better understanding of how men feel and begin to accept them as they are.

They'd never publish it. They make their money perpetuating the species as it exists. They really don't want women to understand men from a man's perspective because then the women might start realizing how bad those magazines are for them.

You guys are no better. You are making the assumption the entire single female population is salivating to get married. I'm not and neither are any of my female friends. Where are you guys getting your information? Maxim?

They'd never publish it. They make their money perpetuating the species as it exists. They really don't want women to understand men from a man's perspective because then the women might start realizing how bad those magazines are for them.

As Kay mentions, publishers and radio and television stations are beginning to recognize the benefits of giving people what they want rather than giving the people what they (the publishers and broadcasters) think they want. I certainly believe that the market for dopey magazines and television shows will never go away, but I do believe that things will eventually change.

It would probably be a better use of time to talk to young men and maybe get across the fact that they don't have to get married or support a woman with a chip on her shoulder.

Then who would they marry? All kidding aside, the problem with what you're suggesting is that young men simply don't listen and don't care. They (we) have much better things to do with their time (like play video games and party with their friends). In the show that I linked to, one of the callers brought up this subject. It was apparent to me that Kay really gave it as much thought as it deserved. I think it is a very real problem that needs to be looked at. There are already people who are trying to spread that message (like Tom Leykis). Unfortunately, they're marginalized by almost everyone in the media and have their views labeled as misogynistic and chauvinistic. The question then is not so much what to tell young men or how, but how to get everyone else to simply accept the message, and men as a consequence, as it is.

It's just that those gals who want to marry in have large megaphones and like to dis on men. Women who don't want to marry tend to keep to themselves and do it themselves. Those men that aren't out trumpeting the marriage strike are doing it themselves too.

You guys are no better. You are making the assumption the entire single female population is salivating to get married. I'm not and neither are any of my female friends. Where are you guys getting your information? Maxim?

I would certainly agree that there is a small percentage of women who don't want to get married. I also believe that a very unhealthy percentage of men want to get married. Here's the problem, though: when you don't get married, it's not your fault. If you don't get married, it becomes the fault of men for being a bunch of immature children. If men don't get married, it is their fault. If they don't get married, it's because they're a bunch of immature children.

I also believe that it is women who put the most pressure on men to get married. Other than the religionists and men who consciously decide that they want children, why would a man want to get married if he didn't have to? Answer? It's because, among others, women feel that a relationship has to "go somewhere" (this is just my own observation which comes from having been in relationship and from knowing others who have been in relationships). Does this mean that there aren't a number of men out there who feel that they won't hate themselves or be lonely if they get married? No. But I don't think that those pressures are nearly as great as the pressure from women to make a relationship "go somewhere".

Finally, I would say that even for those women who don't want to get married, the generalizations about how women view men and the issue of women wanting marriage still hold true. There have been a number of studies (of dubious validity perhaps?) that have shown that women frequently pick their partners based on how they might perform as a partner (their confidence and assertiveness; how they would perform in as a provider; their perceived "niceness"). So, a woman's choice to not get married will still be almost totally irrelevant if she is still choosing her partners based on conscious and unconscious feelings about the man's potential as a husband and/or provider. Marriage, as it exists today, is nothing more than a business arrangement.

It has come slowly, and taken many years. But I have reached an age and a place where I don't really care what people like Hymowitz think. More people get on that list daily.

I am no more incomplete without a wife / lover than I would be complete if I had one. Unless I'm at work - if I don't like, care about, or believe what I am reading or watching or listening to, I have a mouse or a remote, an on off switch, I can put the book down, or I can leave - or tell someone to leave my home.

One has to work to eat, stay dry and warm, and sleep in relative safety. Otherwise I wouldn't put up with crap there either.

Insofar as the new guy media reflect a backlash against feminism, they’re part of the much larger story of men’s long, uneasy relationship with bourgeois order.

Of course the kneejerk reaction here is that the author is "bashing men" rather then describing a significant portion of contemporary American culture.

It's almost as amusing as the kneejerk response to this article from the genderfeminist quarters (such as St. Amanda Fornicatus of Pandagon) that this article was bashing women - as a call for women to surrender their autonomy, be doormats and flatter the male ego.

Pox on you both! Y'all aint listening are certainly aren't much interested in anything beyond your own navels.

Learning to love, care and put someone else first...especially when that someone else is The Other (gender is more profound than even "race") is humbling and maturing.

And it's risky. All life is fraught with risks and to extend yourself emotionally is to risk hurt.

So you can choose not to risk. Choose to insulate yourself, care for yourself and use others to scratch your occasional itch.

How wonderfully narcistic! How wonderfully nihilistic! How soul-sucking! Let's hear it for males and females who just want to fuck each other at night and sneer at each other during the day! WooEee that's the culture that's going to survive!

nearly 60% of college students are women ... and yet no outcry from anyone. over 95% of those incarcerated in this country are ment ... and yet no outcry. it's becoming much more advantageous to men to delink from society than to engage, and the more they do that the more the wackos who are driving this trainwreck have control. its a spiraling situation that wont soon correct itself because men are taught not to be victims. it will have to be women who finally step and realize that society and fanatical women have gone too far. any chance of that happening??

There have been a number of studies (of dubious validity perhaps?) that have shown that women frequently pick their partners based on how they might perform as a partner (their confidence and assertiveness; how they would perform in as a provider; their perceived "niceness").

What do you want us to do? Pick our partners based on how they would perform as an ax murderer? I'm not so sure I would want a partner that didn't have some sort of income or had an anger management challenge. The drunk lying in the gutter is sweet and all but he isn't for me.

Darleen says:

Learning to love, care and put someone else first...especially when that someone else is The Other (gender is more profound than even "race") is humbling and maturing.

Why is it necessary for everyone to be humbled and matured? I think we should let people live their lives in peace and quiet and quit trying to impose what others want on them. Your values are your values, not mine.

Giselle says:

men are taught not to be victims. it will have to be women who finally step and realize that society and fanatical women have gone too far.

If men want something to change then men should rise up and make that change. Men seem like a stong capable group, hardly a set of mentally and physically disabled helpless orphaned puppies. It is not the obligation of one gender to perform the battlecry for the other, although if Helen wishes to do so that is her choice.

"It is not the obligation of one gender to perform the battlecry for the other, although if Helen wishes to do so that is her choice."

Bullshit, if women simply overlook injustices to men and just look out for our own "special interests" we are nothing but selfish prigs who do not understand justice nor liberty or human rights. We deserve none of these if this is the case.

I didn't say overlook injustices to men, but I don't think it is not women's place to determine what is in men's best interest. Men have brains and mouths, who is teaching them that it is up women to determine what is right for them and what isn't, make the case and implement those rights?

Up until the middle of the last century, men pretty much determined what was right and not right for women. This is not a good case for the goose-gander relationship.

Men, you have access to the law, the Internet, the media and a variety of other tools. If you don't like something, don't stand idly by.

Here's my problem with the entire "thesis": for years feminists have recoiled against the notion that men are supposed to be the breadwinners (by the way, -- they act as if us men came up with that idea on our own! If we feel a need to be "breadwinners," guess which gender put that idea in our head? It starts with an "f.")

Now that younger men are finally starting to understand they don't need to be "the breadwinners," they don't need to "grow up" to support a wife and family, the same feminists are ripping them apart.

And, of course, we're supposed to feel sorry for the women because the young men aren't precisely what they want them to be. The young men can't be blamed if they tell those feminists to go to hell.

"Now that younger men are finally starting to understand they don't need to be "the breadwinners," they don't need to "grow up" to support a wife and family, the same feminists are ripping them apart."

------------------

I think the idea among feminists (and even a whole lot of "normal" women) is that they want men to be the breadwinners, but they simultaneously want to give the impression that it's only the idea of men, it's because men are in the evil Patriarchy and it's because men are exploiting them.

In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be supported by men, while at the same time almost SHAMING men for supporting them. And they've gotten away with it for the past 30-40 years by using shame & blame tactics.

Now that some men see the idiocy of supporting some woman WHILE she is shaming and belittling you for supporting her, the feminists have to shore up the other end - they have to get men back into supporting them. Shaming tactics and appeals to chivalry have been excellent manipulative tools in the past, why not use them here?

Reading these comments has me despairing for my children's future. Here we are already teaching them about how to be a good husband and a good wife (they are 9 and 10). I suppose I should ditch that idea and start training them to be suspicious of the opposite sex and just try to get whatever they can out of people.

"I suppose I should ditch that idea and start training them to be suspicious of the opposite sex and just try to get whatever they can out of people."

-------------------

On the other hand, I suspect you also don't want them to be naive patsies who are used by other people.

I know nothing about teaching or bringing up children, but I know a common theme among parents is when children should be taught about "the real world", if at all. Usually the idea is to keep them as naive as possible for as long as possible, the idea being that they won't get involved in drugs or sex or the like at an early age, but I have also seen children benefit from having a realistic approach to the world.

"On the other hand, I suspect you also don't want them to be naive patsies who are used by other people."

True. Part of it is teaching how to recognize a good potential spouse.

I do know people who prefer to keep their children naive in the name of preserving their innocence. There are age-appropriate ways of giving young kids a dose of reality without depressing or scaring the hell out of them.

"I didn't say overlook injustices to men, but I don't think it is not women's place to determine what is in men's best interest."

Uh, by the way 'cham,' there's only two genders. Men are not some 'special interest group.' Men don't think in hostile, divisive terms like this. It's bizarre to declare full on open war on the other gender. I'll never understand why all of are so goddamned stupid this way- JESUS CHRIST you're a freakshow. I think all you just crawled up from HELL. I say send yourself straight back & yes... that's what I mean.

"Up until the middle of the last century, men pretty much determined what was right and not right for women. This is not a good case for the goose-gander relationship."

Revisionist feminist history is most irritating. Men have, since the beginning of time, been assigned the role of "breadwinner," by society, and primarily by women. Men were relegated to working often dangerous, demanding jobs while women stayed home to care for the children. And yes, men were assigned the role of dealing with the outside world while women ran the home. As the economy grew, and education became more widespread, women assumed their place in the outside world.

The problem is, while women can profess to "have it all" today, virtually no man can. Most men are not free to be "stay at home dads" because society -- and most women -- simply won't accept that. Is there any question that most wives and girlfriends would dump men who wanted that? So while the economy has freed women from gender stereotypes and restrictions to some degree, the same hasn't happened for men. And that's not the "patriarchy" that decided that one. Most women still don't want men to "have it all." Let's be perfectly candid.

"Is there any question that most wives and girlfriends would dump men who wanted that?"

-----------------

Not in my mind. But the real question is: "will they admit it or not?".

My experience is that what most people SAY is different from what most of them DO. Women marry up - that's an economic fact beyond dispute. And my suspicion is that even the ones who don't marry up want to. The few marriages I have seen in which the woman makes substantially more money over the long term have all broken apart.

When my now-husband and I were getting to the point of dancing around the whether-to-get-married question, I told (warned?) him flat out that I'm Catholic, and that means if he chose to marry me, that was it -- there was no "out."

Funny how I thought I was warning him -- because of the culture I had been steeped in throughout my 20s -- that this was a potential negative that he should know about in advance.

Needless to say, it wasn't a deal-killer for him. (In retrospect, perhaps it was the deal-sealer.)

"The vast majority of the people I know are caring, insightful, happy, wonderful people."

Or do they diligently work at maintaining a social reputation for being pro-social, because they know that, if they don't, they will suffer from severe social sanctions? The anonymity of Internet blogs like this allows people to say what they really think. This effect is also why we have have the secret ballot. Scary, isn't it?

Well, I have refrained from commenting on this strand, because for the most part I found the article in question, and most of the comments on it, juvenile in the extreme.

This woman, and I use that term lightly, Hymowitz illustrates precisely why American men are increasingly refusing to enter into a marriage contract with a modern (read feminist) American woman. It's her pretense to superiority, her incredible sense of entitlement (some refer to this as the princess syndrome, but the clinical term for it is narcissistic personality disorder), and her complete inability to accept responsibility for the consequences of her behavior. In short, it's her bad attitude more than anything else. She is so predictably boring.

Marriage law descends from English common law, which is over 600 years old. Under the terms of the contract, she gets a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and child support for every child she conceives, even if none of those children are her husband's. The legal terms involved in this fully binding legal contract are community property, community funds, sweat equity, and presumptive paternity.

Some guys pretend to think they can avoid the terms and conditions of this contract by simply living with a girl without getting married. Hey, boy, grow up. If you share property, if you share money, if she does light housework, you're married under common law. All she has to do is walk down to the court house and claim common law, and she is legally entitled to half of your income earned and assets acquired from the day she moved in. That's the law. The only thing she isn't entitled to is presumptive paternity, but she is entitled to everything else, and she will get it in every court.

We're not talking about love here. We're not talking about passion and romance and compassion and togetherness, and all of that crap. We're talking about money, and a lot of it.

There are two and only two things you can do with money. You can invest it in an asset, or you can waste it on a liability.

I am fully aware of everything she gets under the terms and conditions of the law that I am held accountable to. What do I get? Do I get a life partner? No. Do I get a helpmate? No. Do I get a mother to raise my children? No. Do I get a wife? No.

Well, then, what do I get? A roommate? A roommate with a bad attitude and a large expense account. What does she have to offer me? Sex?

I want to make sure I have this perfectly clear. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding or confusion between us over the terms and conditions of a fully binding legal contract. In exchange for a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and child support, all the modern American girl is willing to offer me is something I can get off of any one of hundreds of bar sluts on any night, for nothing more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face.

What does that make her, the superior woman, worth to me? A tequila shot and a lie to the face.

It's a free market, girls. It's a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on a price. And it will never be anything other than that. Never.

I'm the buyer. I'm the one providing a title, purchasing a house, opening a bank account, paying income, insurance and child support, as required by law. I'm the one doing the buying. What is she selling me? Bad attitude and obligation sex?

I'd rather have the money. And I do. I would rather have the money. Wouldn't you?

Come on, admit it. Would you rather have the money, or would you rather have a roommate who's afraid to grow up? Who can't get over a situation comedy she saw on tv when she was in junior high. Please.

The modern American child-woman wants all of the benefits and security of being married without any of the responsibilities involved. That's the real problem right there.

She doesn't want to make a life commitment--to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, foresaking all others, till death. Instead, she reserves the absolute right to change her mind as soon as she gets bored, which effectively renders the marriage contract null and void from the very beginning.

She doesn't want to be a helpmate. She doesn't want to help her husband manage his house, manage his finances, manage his business, accrue assets, grow wealth. In other words, she doesn't want a co-equal partner. She wants a servant who will bust his ass providing for her every desire, simply because she figured out how to fuck.

She refuses to raise her children. Instead, she insists on running off to work so she can afford to pay some stranger to raise her children. Somebody take care of this for me, I have a career!

The modern American girl is worthless. She is nothing but a total liability to a man. So it's no surprise that American men, those who know money, won't have anything to do with them. Other than buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, fuck her once, then dump her in the morning before she wakes up. That's all she's worth, because that's all she made herself worth.

This is a female problem. It's her compelete inability and total refusal to look at herself in the mirror and see that all she's succeeded in doing with her life is to turn herself into a liability. But then that's Feminism 101. How does one turn a girl from an asset into a libaility? Show her a situation comedy on tv.

Some say that because men created the law, they should be the ones to change it. Excuse me, but half of the voting population is female. There is no way that women are ever going to agree to change the law. It gives them power.

That's the real problem isn't it? The battle between the sexes. So, all that feminism has accomplished is to change the fundamental relationship between male and female from cooperation to competition.

And now that she finds herself on the losing end of that proposition, with no life partner, no helpmate and no father for her children, busting her ass to afford her consumptive lifestyle, paying for her own house, sitting at home alone, she blames men for it?

"Geez. I'm 36, unmarried. This is not encouraging me. And I'd like a family, too."

Go to church. Seriously. Find a reformed Protestant church. There you will find women who are smart, capable, committed to marriage and family, not feminists. Many of them even drink. But never to excess, of course. They'll expect a husband to provide for them, but they will never, ever shame him for it. Other churches might work too, except maybe not on the drinking thing.

"They'll expect a husband to provide for them, but they will never, ever shame him for it."

Because they will be raising (and perhaps educating) your children, keeping your home, cooking your meals (and damn fine cooks many are, too), using the money you earn wisely, and all-around treating you with respect and like the hero you are - and teaching your children to do the same.

I don't know that most men want this anymore, though. And most women don't want to be like this, I guess. But they do exist.

I don't need for you to post a link to the laws in my state. I'm a licensed broker. I am intimately familiar with contract law, marriage law and divorce law in my state. I have to be since I sell real estate and deal mostly with repossessed homes. Over 80% of the repossessed homes I deal with, and I deal with over 100 every year, are as a direct result of divorce.

Go to church. Seriously. Find a reformed Protestant church. There you will find women who are smart, capable, committed to marriage and family, not feminists.

Very funny. That was my last resort.T hough I chose a reformed church for doctrine, not dating chances. I met a reasonably attractive woman with whom I hit it off:in the end, I was told I didn't make enough money. I was also blindsided by a pscho-babbling "preacher" who, while I sat waiting for her for fifty minutes, councelled her that it was too soon after getting a divorce for her to date. The concept of grace did not enter the prig's little mind.

I now attend my own church every morning in my home office. And will do so for the remainder of my life.

No -- its a good deal -- the traditional family. Yeah, it may not sound like a "good deal" if all you hear about are the down sides. But, on the whole it is a good deal for both men and women.

The only mistake is in thinking that you are actually going to get that. It's not possible now. No matter what happens, no matter how committed you and your fiance are to the traditional life, the fact remains that you have to do it in the context of the modern world. The fact remains that she could become a modern bitch any time she wants to and get away with it. And, that's really all it takes to tip the balance, especially over time, to a point that it really isn't worth it.

You can't "choose the right person". Even if you do they aren't going to be the same person in 10 years of going through enormous personal milestones like having children and massive career changes and so on. And that's what marriage means. None of these schemes really work. There is no way out of this. You were born into slavery. Now your choices are, metaphorically speaking, to either run away and become a fugitive or remain in chains and live in "peace".

I have been foramlly interviewing young single male university graduates since 1978, and have asked them one initial questions: "what do you think of marriage, dating, and having children?"

I agree with Cham's perceptive first comment, "marriage is no longer culturally mandated". I would add that marriage is no longer culturally mandated by older males as a criteria for joining male groups.

The acculturated hierarchy existing between men into the 1970s is fractured.

The reason this particular group of educated men are not getting married has more to do with male peers and seniors, than it does with women, and particularly university educated women.

Further, with regard to "gaming", Ms. Hymowitz, and young men in Never Neverland, in the responses I get from graduate men regarding marriage over the years has changed as educated men have adapted.

Male graduates since the class of 2000 have developed a long list of women they do not date, and they share these lists with each other.

"Career women" are on the list of almost all male graduates I've interviewed since approximately the class of 2000. They don't use the word "feminist".

Remarkably, I have taken upward of two pages of notes on their specifications for "the right partner." Further, there is open general hostility toward their female contemporary classmates. These lists, specifications, and hostility for the most part did not exist until about 2000.

Also remarkable are the percentages of these young male graduates in seeking traditional all male occupations like auto repair, construction and constructions subcontract specialties, pest control, and the like. These are occupations no university graduate would have been drawn to in years past.

Most adult men develop avocations, special interests, hobbies and sports where they associate with other males into "communities". Ms. Hymowitz (if this is here real name)is just pursuing modern female myths and legends educated women have created for themselves to verbalize to other women.

Young college graduates are increasingly hostile to and withdrawing from their female contemporaries. Culturally women are getting progressively more alienated from men. The perception of women by men in this group is deteriorating far more than Ms. Hymowitz realizes.

Graduate males in the workplace are trying to adapt to female managers, seniors, and leaders. They are sincerely trying judging from the statements I hear. But it is not working.

Sorry the question was ambiguous. By culture, I guess I mean the way a lot of women treat men today as compared to a couple of generations ago. I was just thinking if a woman uses Roe v Wade as an excuse to not be responsible, perhaps it would expand into how she deals with relationships.

serket: I was just thinking if a woman uses Roe v Wade as an excuse to not be responsible, perhaps it would expand into how she deals with relationships.

You let a cat out of the bag. I've been saying for decades: if a woman is willing to murder her own baby out of "convenience", what is she willing to do with her spouse? Being pro-choce is a deal killer: why would a rationale man put his life into such a woman's hands?

i play video games, my wife plays video games, the only arguement we have is who plays what game.

men are avoiding women, as has been said its a lose - lose situation for them.

i recently got married, 3 months ago, my wife lives 5000 miles from me, i havent seen her for a month. If i didnt adore her so much i wouldnt have gotten married, if i didnt know she wasnt going to screw me out of any money, i wouldnt have married her at all.

a lot of western women, have a sense of entitlement, they need this they need that, the complain that they arent being paid the same as men, yet they get more benefits. so it is in these womens best interests to screw men legally for everything they can get, and they wonder why men are saying nah, dont want to marry you.

these modern day feminists, have destroyed themselves, they have turned men into distrustful, and quite a few hate women because of the few. i dislike a lot of women because i see the obvious sexist dogma spouted by them, i see that they dont actually care for anyone but themselves, even if they have children.

my rowan is different, she hates these women more than i. using, manipulative women, only looking for what they can get and thats usually money.

so to any man as a married man, find yourself a good woman, make sure she isnt a liar, but if you cant find one whom accepts you as you then avoid all women. they are not worth the effort.

In 1978 I had a client, Dr. Charles Sumner,III, also a lawyer, who asked me to represent him in his divorce from his wife of 20 years. There were a rash of professional divorces starting at that time. Professional men, MDs,DDSs,DMVs,CPAs,lawyers, with long marriages were often dumbfounded to receive a petition for divorce.

As a result of my conversations with Dr. Sumner, we agreed that dramatic changes were underway in civil society for men, especially university educated men as well as professional men. Although there were no statistics at that time, we concluded women were undoing the fundamental structure of civil society as it has existed for the last 7000 years, or at least fundamentally altering them.

There are three classically critical institutions associated with civilization, 1) the per capita percentage ratio of acculturated non-violent educated males in upwardly organized hierarchical tiers of educated peer groups, and linked by cultural agreements into the large institutional organizations of civil society; 2) the hearth/dwelling/monogamous marriage/child rearing institutions unique to civil society, and 3) how successful are civil institutions in acculturating gang/long-house/tongs into non-violent civil society. On this last point, how many men per capita are executed, banished, exiled, imprisoned, etc. is an indicator of the health of civil society.

The reason for my interviews is an avocational interest in contemporary anthropology and comparative government.

My interviews are reality checks on how educated acculturated men are adjusting and adapting to social changes demanded by women and how civil society is evolving.

After thirty years statistics are available. It is now possible to plot trends and create graphs.

1. Women are unconstrained in their selection of men so chase the limited pool of A-List bad boys. Men in their late teens and twenties are mostly losers except for the small pool of A-List bad boys and sit off on the sidelines in the mating game.

You can see this by the amount of money women spend on plastic surgery, cosmetics/fashion, and implants. Chasing after the small amount of the bad boys.

And why not? There is no perceived difficulty in moving from one bad boy to another, no real cost. And the guys are hyper-macho, very high testosterone, and the valued socially companion (of the moment).

2. In response to the lack of ability to compete (very few men can be "Mystery" or would want to be him), substitution of video games occurs. Why not? There is little prospect for a serious relationship when most men are not say the A-Lister. An average accountant who may be a decent guy has little to offer in competition with a more "Sexy" guy who races Motorcycles or plays in an indie-alt band.

Everyone is trying to find someone that "loves them for them". That doesn't seem to be working out so well in most cases. Your wife may be great now, but have a few kids with her and make some other major changes in her life and give it some time. People change. And, it doesn't take nearly as much change as one often imagines for someone to become a complete ass hole to you in the right context. I'm not saying that she'll change for the worse, but anyone, myself included, will change for the worse if put under that kind of conditioning in a bad environment. Frankly, I, personally, think I might even be able to handle (if it's worth it) a little brainwashing, drugs, sleep deprivation and starvation for a while. But, give it ten or fifteen years and add in major events like having children for the first time. No one is a match for something like that.

In any case, may your friends be a good influence on you both, good luck, and stay strong.

Serket, thanks for that link. I have seen that survey before. The reformed protestant churches of which I speak (example, Orthodox Presbyterian, Presbyterian Church in America) might be grouped with nondenominational or perhaps with mainline Protestant, though they really belong in neither. In any case, without that type of church listed as a discrete group, the survey doesn't help me much.

But I would agree that there is altogether too much divorce within a community that is supposed to be committed to marriage and family.

Watch two hours of television, and you'll know exactly what happened to the father/husband role in our society. Every show, and commercial, shows how immature married men are, and how they must be "saved from themselves" by women.

It's quite nauseating to me. I remember my father wasn't like that at all. And if a woman spoke to me in such a condescending way, her stuff would be on the lawn.

Marketing companies have figured out who really spends money in a married household, and how to exploit that. Take a look at the H&R Block commercials that are currently running. listen to the dialogue. it's playing off of a man's fear of failure, and a woman's sense of superiority.

Notice every situation comedy on television. The man's an idiot, and needs to be "saved" every episode.

I've been married twice. There are NO benefits to marriage for men in this country. Women in the united states, want to have their cake, and eat it also. They want to be independent, yet have their needs met. They want the freedom of career choices, without having to be responsible for those choices. They don't understand that "Marital service" is a bi-directional transaction. Respect, love and service needs to be mutual.

Ladies, take a look at the personal ads, say, on Craigslist. Check out Women Seeking Men.

Typical ad goes something like this

Me, 265 pounds, three kids (from different fathers) works sometimes, has an apartment. Seeking handsome man, career-minded and financially independent.

I'm sorry, but she's already abused previous men, and doesn't deserve the opportunity to do it again.

I think all anyone really needs to do for an "in-your-face" and, in my humble, battle-weary opinion - accurate look at marriage and today's modern women, you need go only as far as nomarriage.com - it's frighteningly accurate.

As for "gaming" - while I haven't done it a long time, I know many people who do it. They do it with their families (parents & children alike), they do it with friends - live and on-site or through the internet. This myth of the "solo basement dweller playing games in his parents' house without a job, not sleeping eating drinking" is just more typical stereotyping. I just don't have time for it or I might be inclined to join my friends, too.

It's not surprising that the majority of people complaining about the alleged extended-adolescence of men today are those who are reaping the "rewards" of "equality" - American women (generally, not entirely). The pendulum has swung too far the other way and women, families, and society will suffer as a result.

Of all the obnoxious collectivist habits that piss me off, projecting one's own personality flaws on the entire opposite gender is one of the most annoying. If a woman can't get a man to commit, she's either driving them away, or seeking out the ones who will fulfill her expectations.

Want a guy who wants marriage at 20 years old, and will stay with you for life? Then quit chasing the ones who treat you like crap. Every woman here probably has a couple guys in the "friend" zone, who has to listen to your endless griping about men in general. Will you even consider dating them? No? Then quit your whining.

Hymowitz has written utter tripe. In fact, I am tempted to remark "what an arrogant *ss she is."

"These days, he lingers. . ." "frustrated young women. . ." "Single women . . . are . . . hyperachieving" She goes on to quote the percentage of SYM (depersonalize much ?) who are unmarried, but no such stats for SYF's.

And the pinnacle of hypocrisy is that a female author who, after writing inflammatory, unrelenting garbage like "semi-hormonal adolescence" "a playground of drinking" "adulthood looks as though it’s receding." "learned that he didn’t want to grow up" "sophomoric fun and macho action" "the Frat Packers" is somehow upset or offended that www.menarebetterthanwomen.com exists ?

Great steaming piles of dung, woman, after shoveling that many misanthropic generalizations, someone else's misogynistic generalizations offend you ? Grow the H*LL up, would you ?

Oh, and Irony called. She's suing for theft of intellectual property.

Oddly, CSI is somehow a male show ? I must hang out with the wrong women. My wife, her aunt, and a female co-worker all enjoy it, though I'm losing interest. I wonder if that's an anomaly because, as we all, know, "girls don't like science" or "girls don't like that icky stuff." Oh, and thesame three women ALL love Family Guy, too. Sexist much ?

I truly admire Hymowitz's utter blindness in mentioning Spike and The Man Show with absolutely no mention that the phenomenon she is observing is actually the specialization of entertainment, and not that men are childish.

Ms. Hymowitz: Lifetime Television, Lifetime Movie Network, and Women's Entertainment Network called, they'd like you to know they exist, since you apparently have never heard of them.

Great googamooga! I was married young, widowed young, remarried, and have been married 20 years to the same woman (a PhD, in fact). I am only now beginning to realize how incredibly lucky I was to find two intelligent woman in my lifetime who were not such over-the-top, "men are losers" misanthropists.

But rest assured, articles like Hymowitz's are absolute goldmines in teaching my two sons why the idea of marriage today is borderline terrifying: It should be thought of as juggling nitroglycerine with a woman. Either way, you'd better be d*mned sure who you are trusting with that, because the article clearly illustrates how much value society as a whole (and incidentally the courts) place on your gender. So, for that much at least, I thank Ms. Hymowitz.

Okay, enough about that pathetic hit piece. Young men, and women, are simply responding to the lessening of requirements placed on them. As one who joined the military at 17, I spent my young adult years in the Air Force. I've observed a vast difference between young adults in military tech schools and dorm-students in college. Both groups have their party animals. The military party animals would get up at 4:30 AM the next day and go to school, the college party animals often would not. Either group might vomit in the bathroom. The military party animals would clean it up. The difference ? The military ones weren't really that different inside, but they were required to meet certain standards.

Even as we make life safer, with more safety-nets, the value we place on "civilization" dwindles as the value we place on technology and the individual increases. Because of that, the expectations of our civilization, norms and mores especially, become less important. Thirty to forty years ago, there would be a stigma to not being married, as the idior author of that hit-piece noted. What she failed to mention is that the shame of an abortion would have been infinitely greater. She bemoans the supposed lack of responsibility of men, and says nothing about women's equal lack of responsibility.

The problem with the elevation of the individual and the decreasing importance of societal norms and mores (which, after all, are the expectations placed on citizens) is that idiots like Hymowitz don't always gets to pick and choose which norms or mores get destroyed. You take the bad with the good, or you get a big glass of "Shut the h*ell up" and sit down.

adrian, i am childfree she is childfree, children are not for us. we both have genetic predispositions to certain diseases cancer for one and other genetic based problems, which wouldnt be fair to inflict on any children for one and for the other we just dont want children, thats us and our lives.

we have decided to spend our time with each other and to give back to society i do volunteer work, for an old persons charity. the big difference is we have spoken to each other for 3 years, we have spent time together, we know each other as well as we can, she knows all my bad habits and accepts them and i know hers.

i lucked out, i found someone who is more than just a partner, someone who gets me, who knows a lot about stuff, where i am weak she is strong, and vice versa. we didnt look for each other, it was pure chance and we met and it was right. i had given up so had she. so there was no desperation in the hunt for a mate. it was friends, then it became more.

but i still would say unless you KNOW the person really well, their motivations, and as much as you can about them, then dont go for a permanent relationship.

if there is any doubt.. run like crazy. we have spoken over 1 million words online to each other in 3 years, i have a copy of the chats. spent days with her seeing her at her best and worst. as she saw me. and it works for us.

I read where you wrote that Hymowitz replied to you in the PJM column, stating she did not realize men's "anger" and intends to do an article from their point of view?

She signed "chastened". Perhaps she is. But she still doesn't understand.

Does one actually have to be male to understand the [overwhelming] male point of view in all of this? Outside of your ability to look at both sides, it seems so.

It is why Hymowitz and those of that viewpoint don't matter to me, and likely, to many other men.

I find no longer being married has brought such a freedom - one I had forgotten existed. There is NOTHING like being able to turn on my heel and walk away from any circumstance I find objectionable. Trust me, life's too short.

"Does one actually have to be male to understand the [overwhelming] male point of view in all of this?"

I think the gender is not as important as the ability to listen and to really hear what people are saying, not what you want them to say or what you believe they should say. I think being a psychologist and listening to thousands of men as well as watching the world around me (and having a good father) helped me to understand the male point of view. Many women (and men) have no clue about how men feel and seem to be too self-centered to do so.

What do you want us to do? Pick our partners based on how they would perform as an ax murderer?

I am not terribly concerned about how you pick your mates for the purpose of this discussion. The point that I was trying to make was that despite the fact that some women don't want to marry, many of those still choose men based upon how they would perform as a mate. Again, what would it matter if you were looking to get married or not if you chose your partners based on the exact same criteria?

If men want something to change then men should rise up and make that change.

Lest I am mistaken, this article describes just such a phenomenon. They have simply chosen to ignore society and not be martyrs for the cause.

One way we teach our children to recognize good spouse material is by being good spouse material and being in a good, healthy, loving marriage.

This goes back to one of my previous comments. How has the rise of divorce, dual career households, and single-parent-by-choice in the 70's affected future generations (and more specifically, the one that we're talking about now)? If we have had an entire generation, and more, of men (and women for that matter) who have not learned what it means to be in a healthy relationship from their own parents then why would we now expect them to know what it means now?

What state do you live in? Maybe I can provide you with a link to the law there.

Every state has a website with links to the legislative branch. You can simply go to legislative site and browse through the laws from there. Just do a google search for your state and click on the link that ends in .gov.

I have been foramlly interviewing young single male university graduates since 1978

The problem with your research as it relates to the article in question is that fewer men are graduating from college now than in previous decades. According to Canadian statistics, men and women are increasingly marrying people with the same educations. With women going to college in increasing numbers and men in decreasing numbers, there is an obvious disparity between the sexes.

Further, there is open general hostility toward their female contemporary classmates. These lists, specifications, and hostility for the most part did not exist until about 2000.

Does this surprise you? Have you sat through a women's studies class lately? I don't know if the class is the same throughout the states, but the one that I went through was just an educational extension of radical feminist groups like NOW and the AAUW. I have known females who, before attending the class could be considered appealing (which is, of course, certainly very subjective), changed after attending the class into nothing but man-hating radicals. That aside, I'd certainly like to see your studies. Do you have a link to your studies?

Men in their late teens and twenties are mostly losers except for the small pool of A-List bad boys and sit off on the sidelines in the mating game.

I think you have to differentiate between the mating game and the dating game. I would also say that you would have to define what it is that you consider a "loser" (is that simply another label for what Kay calls "child-man"?).

RE: 1Charlie2 - I found your analysis of the differences between military and non-military college-aged kids to be spot on. As someone who recently transferred off of active duty and back into the college, I've noticed the difference. The idea of not attending class is somewhat mind-boggling to me. The idea of allowing myself to fail is certainly foreign to me. Would I have the same views had I not joined the military? Maybe. Maybe not. That aside, I do think that this is certainly another issue that needs to be addressed by Kay (though I am not sure will be done if you call her names).

Outside of your ability to look at both sides, it seems so.

In defense of some women, I think that there are certainly more out there like Helen. However, I simply believe that most are too engrossed in their own lives (and rightfully so) to care about our problems.

What sort of land do you live in. Young woman don't want to be hindered with males except to produce the children who then become the means of obtaining an income from the State without any of the responsiblities of marriage.

Unfortunately, nowadays there is not the stigma attached to these women for having numerous children outside of marriage.

There is also not the stigma which used to be attached to such children.

Males are only of use to them for one purpose and even that can be sidestepped in certain ways.

A lot young women to not have the commitment to relationships, they simply see the males as a means to an end.

Are you saying that parents should not provide accommodation albeit rooms, basements(whatever they may be, we don't stick our sons in cellars) for their offspring, should these parents also opt out and leave these young men on the streets, homeless. Is that what you would like.

The gaming industry and the Internet have driven the home computer market.

At work, all one really needs is a word processor and data program like Excel or similar and some need a power point scenario for annual reports and sales pitches.

My son is a huge gamer. We build our own computers, buying chosen components off line. It's a great hobby. The newer games require "more horsepower", so to speak. So does each new level of windows. As far as usefulness goes, for what I do with a computer, I never used windows 3.1 to its fullest potential, much less the xp professional I am using now.

Somehow, men are childish for playing games on computers. I read that somewhere on the Internet, authored by a feminist. Maybe that's just some different kind of computer game.

marbel: That is a legitimate point about possibly leaving out certain churches. Another thing I did not like about the analysis on that website is that they put a lot of emphasis saying atheists have lower divorce rates than Christians, but if you actually look at the data, you'll see that it doesn't apply to all Christians. The numbers for Mormons were actually hire than I expected. I was raised Mormon, but no longer believe in the tenets. I have considered joining a Lutheran church and there are two that I know of in my town. I have admired Luther's courage since learning about him in high school.

Denn, you are right about the portrayal of men in the media. I just saw P.S. I Love You over the weekend and in the beginning the woman is really mean to her husband and then he dies. Before he died he setup these letters for her to receive after he was gone. While reading these letters, she begans to love her husband again and she even sticks up for a man who is being yelled at by his wife.

The emergence of the "child man" is derived from the the liberalisation and feminisation of society. The process began during the 1960's when the ideological leftists (IE. hippies, feminists and liberals) forced their anti-convservative beliefs onto men, women, and children. They promoted promiscuity, binge drinking, drug-taking and nightclubbing. It resulted in a lot of young people becoming liberalised and feminised.

In today's society, a large percentage of the youth are egotistical partygoers who drink excessively, take drugs and lead promiscuous lifestyles. Many of them place careerism ahead of family. They find it hard to empathise and sympathise with others. Their behavioural traits represent the carnage that entails when ideological leftists such as liberals and feminists are allowed to rewrite society's mores and laws.

The current generation of young men aren't traditional men as they weren't raised to be traditional men. They were raised to believe masculinity is evil and unnatural. The anti-male bigotry they were exposed to as children confused them into believing a "good man" is one who is liberalised and feminised.

Feminism taught the current generation of young women to unsex themselves. The reason they were taught to unsex themselves is because the second-wave feminists believed that femininity is inferior to masculinity. As a result, women are lauded for encompassing unladylike traits such as violence and assertiveness; especially when they use those traits against men. Praise is heaped upon the women who are self-centred, uncouth, egotistical and devious. It is why a lot of young men have developed a stance of indifference towards women, marriage and family.

In conclusion, the feminisation and liberalisation of society has morphed women into unmarriageable beings. The volatility and egotistic nature of modern women leads to their parasitisation of men. Therefore, I think the "child man" is wise for not marrying women.